Patna High Court
Birendra Singh vs The State Of Bihar on 23 March, 2023
Author: Rajiv Roy
Bench: Rajiv Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10118 of 2015
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-184 Year-2012 Thana- CHAINPUR District- Kaimur (Bhabua)
======================================================
Birendra Singh Son of Late Dharmdeo Singh resident of village- Nadaura P.S.
Dinara, District- Rohtas,.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rana Ishwar Chandra, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Rajeev Nayan, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
C.A.V. ORDER
Date : 22-03-2023
Heard the parties.
2. The present petition has been preferred for
quashing of the order dated 10.12.2014 passed by the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhabhua (Kaimur) in Chainpur P.S.
Case No. 184 of 2012 (arising out of G.R. No. 1728 of 2012) by
which cognizance was taken for the offences under Sections
420, 467, 468, 469, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code against
the petitioners.
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that the
informant namely, Gopal Saha, the Block Development Officer,
Chainpur, Kaimur issued a letter bearing No. 1491 dated
20.10.2012addressed to the Officer in-charge of Chainpur Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10118 of 2015 dt.22-03-2023 2/20 Police Station, Chainpur alleging therein that during the Inspection of Schools, it transpired to the Informant that several persons have been appointed on the basis of forged signature of the informant in the said schools and details were given in the F.I.R.
4. It has further been alleged that with regard to the aforesaid incident, explanation was called for from the concerned Head Masters who submitted their respective replies stating therein that they had already informed in this regard to the Ex-Block Education Officer, Shri Birendra Singh. It has further been alleged that when the concerned registers were called for from the present Block Education officer, Shri Suresh Kumar Singh, he informed that Ex-Block Education Officer (the petitioner herein) had not handed over any such document with regard to selection to him.
5. Further allegation is that the information was given to the District Education Officer, Kaimur vide letter No. 1317 dated 22.09.2012 and the District Magistrate, Kaimur vide letter No. 1358 dated 29.09.2012. Further allegation is that the District Magistrate, Kaimur vide letter dated 17.10.2012 directed the DEO that he himself is competent to lodge the F.I.R. and on that basis of said letter, a formal F.I.R. under Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10118 of 2015 dt.22-03-2023 3/20 sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code was lodged against the petitioner and others vide Chainpur P.S. Case No. 184 of 2012 dated 01.11.2012.
6. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was posted as Block Education Officer, Chainpur, Kaimur and superannuated from the post on 31.04.2012 and his name has wrongly been dragged only to harass him.
7. It has been further contended that the allegation against the petitioner is that he colluded with the co- accused who was the Block Teacher and issued appointment letters in their favour putting forged signature of the informant.
8. However, facts remains that contrary to the allegation, the same was duly signed by the informant. Further, as the salary of the Teachers were not paid, they preferred representations before the higher authorities followed by the complaint alleging bribe by the informant. Disturbed by the same, a false case was lodged denying the signature on the alleged appointment letters.
9. The further contention is that as per the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Employment and Service Condition) Rules 2006 (henceforth for short 'the Panchayat Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10118 of 2015 dt.22-03-2023 4/20 Teachers Rules') which was amended in 2008, the selection process was done by a Committee under the chairmanship of 'Prakhand Pramukh' having Block Development Officer, Block Education Officer and a member of the Panchayat Samiti as members and all the selection proceeding was made available to one Balchand Ram on 22.12.2010. Further, a meeting was held on 10.03.2012 as also on 02.04.2012 and a decision was taken that the appointment letters should be issued under the joint signature of the Block Development Officer and the Block Education Officer.
10. Later, the 'Prakhand Pramukh' preferred complaint before the District Education Officer, Buxar alleging irregularities. Accordingly, three men Committee was constituted. The petitioner in his turn asked the 'Prakhand Sadhan Sevi', namely, Balchand Ram to provide all the documents relating to Midday Meal and the selection process of the Block Teachers but the same was not provided too. Accordingly, he recommended action against Balchand Ram vide his office letter dated 23.05.2012 and 28.05.2012 addressed to the District Education Officer, Kaimur and the Block Development Officer, Chainpur (Annexure 6 and 6 (1) to the petition).
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10118 of 2015 dt.22-03-2023 5/20
11. In turn, Balchand Ram was put on notice on 29.02.2012. Further on 05.06.2012, the petitioner submitted letter no. 232 dated 05.06.2012 stating therein misconduct of the Balchand Ram.
12. Finally, the Block Development Officer, Chainpur gave direction for lodging of FIR against Balchand Ram as also file case for recovery of the alleged amount from him.
13. Although, a team was constituted by the District Education Officer who found no irregularities in the selection of Block Teachers and submitted its report on 28.06.2012, the District Magistrate, Kaimur vide his office letter no. 2531 dated 13.09.2012 constituted another three men Committee to enquire into the selection process of Block Teachers of Chainpur Block in which several irregularities were found and accordingly, the Block Development Officer, Chainpur lodged FIR in which it was alleged that on the basis of scanned signatures on the selection letter, the teachers were allowed to submit their joining.
14. It was further alleged that the retired Block Education Officer (the petitioner herein) had complete knowledge about the said illegal joining of the teachers on the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10118 of 2015 dt.22-03-2023 6/20 basis of the scanned signatures and when the earlier Block Development Officer had asked for the documents from him, vide letter no. 331 dated 22.09.2012, he informed that no document was forged. Accordingly, request was made to lodge the FIR and take steps against the accused persons including the teachers incorporated in the FIR and the other officials involved in it. In this way, the petitioner found himself implicated in the present case.
15. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier he had moved this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 5488 of 2013 challenging the FIR which was dismissed on 11.07.2013 by a Bench of this Court stating therein that no opinion can be given on the merit of the case and it would be appropriate that the petitioner place all the materials before the police who will examine and take steps in accordance with law (Annexure 15).
16. It is his submission is that in the light of the said order, he submitted documents before the Police Officers with the prayer to discharge him from this case which however in a routine manner submitted charge sheet vide 193/2014 dated 31.10.2014 whereafter the learned C.J.M., Bhabhua took cognizance on 10.12.2014 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10118 of 2015 dt.22-03-2023 7/20
17. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that contrary to the allegation of joining of the teachers on forged letters, they moved before the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority for payment of their salary Kaimur at Bhabhua who passed order on 21.03.2014 to make payment.
18. As no payment was made, writ petitions were filed which came to be disposed of on 15.02.2017 and in view of the statement made in the counter affidavit that despite the direction of the District Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabhua to challenge the order passed by the Appellate Authority, no such appeal/writ petition was filed by the State and in that backdrop, direction was given to comply the order dated 21.03.2014 passed by the Appellate Authority (Annexure 19).
19. He as such, submits that when the teachers who according to the FIR came in the employment on the basis of the forged scanned signatures got salary, as stated above, the FIR fails and is fit to be quashed.
20. In support of the case, the learned counsel cited a case of Major Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1986 CRI.L.J.303 reference to paragraph 7, 9 and 10 which read as follows:
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10118 of 2015 dt.22-03-2023 8/20 "7. Notice of the petition was issued in this case to the respondent-State of Punjab, and the learned counsel for both the parties have addressed the arguments at considerable length.
Obviously, the only point which falls for consideration is, as to whether the criminal Court which was seized of the case against the petitioners and which had framed a Charge Sheet against them for various offences relating to acts of impersonation, forgery etc. can proceed with the case. in spite of the final three-tier verdict of the civil Courts, culminating with the dismissal of the Regular Second Appeal by this Court, on the very points which are the subject-matter of the Charge- sheet in the criminal case. In this behalf. Mr. P.C. Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed strong reliance on Karamchand Ganga Parshad v. Union of India AIR 1971 SC 1244:
(1971 Cri LJ 1072), wherein it was observed that "It is a well established principle of law that the decisions of the civil Courts are binding on the criminal Courts. The converse is not true." In this case, a Division Bench of Delhi High Court after elaborately hearing the arguments in a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, rejected the Writ Petition on the sole ground of that in view of the pendency of the criminal proceedings before some Courts, it would be inappropriate for the High Court to late pronounce on the questions arising for decision in the Writ Petition. Their Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10118 of 2015 dt.22-03-2023 9/20 Lordships of the Supreme Court held that the High Court had seriously erred in coming to this conclusion. by The appeals were, therefore, allowed by the Supreme Court and the cases were remitted to the High Court, for disposal on merits, with observations which have already been noticed.
9. As against these authorities, the learn State counsel has sought support from Harchandi v. State of Haryana, (1982) 2 Chand LR (Cri) 250, a Single Bench decision of this Court.
This authority is absolutely distinguishable on facts and it would not be justifiable to extract the single sentence in para 9 of the judgment, reproduced below lay down a general proposition of law.
"Otherwise also there is no bar for a Civil Court and criminal Court coming to a different finding on the same facts."
A closer reading of the relevant portion would indicate that the above observations were made in the context of consideration of the validity and genuineness of a Gift Deed. Another authority relied upon by the learned State counsel is B. N. Kashyap v. AIR 1945 Lah 23: (46 Cri LJ
296), a full Bench decision of that Court. The following observations of the Full Bench are the point under discussion: "There in no reason my judgment as to why the decision of the civil Court particularly in an action in personam should be allowed to have that sanctity. There appears to be Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10118 of 2015 dt.22-03-2023 10/20 no sound reason for that view. To hold that when a party has been able to satisfy a civil Court as to the justice of his claim and has in the result succeeded in obtaining a decree which is final and binding upon the parties, it would not be open to criminal Courts to go behind the findings of the civil Court is to place the latter without any valid reason in a much higher position than what it actually occupies in the system of administration in this country and to make it master not only of cases which it is called upon to adjudicate but also of cases which it is not called upon to determine and over which it has really no control."
The above observations do support the contention on behalf of the respondent-State, but in the wake of the decision of the Supreme Court in Karamchand Ganga Pershad's case (1971 Cri LJ 1072) (supra) the law must be taken to have been finally enunciated.
10. The result is that the action initiated in consequence of First Information Report No. 522, dated Dec. 31, 1982, in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nakodar, and the Charge-Sheet (Copy Annexure P/5) framed against the petitioners and all other proceedings in the case, are hereby quashed, being an abuse of the process of Court. The present petition is disposed of accordingly.
Petition allowed."
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10118 of 2015 dt.22-03-2023 11/20
21. Further, he cited case of M/s. Karamchand Ganga Prashad and another Vs. Union of Indian and others reported in AIR 1971 SC 1244 with specific reference to paragraph 4 to show that when the civil matter has been decided in favour of the accused herein, the criminal case, continued.
"4. A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court after elaborately hearing the arguments advanced in the case on the various issues arising for decision in the case rejected the writ petitions on the sole ground that in view of the pendency of the criminal proceedings before some Courts in the State of West Bengal, it is inappropriate for the High Court to pronounce on the questions arising for decision in the writ petitions. In our opinion the High Court seriously erred in coming to this conclusion. If the appellants are able to establish their case that the ban on export of maize from the State of Haryana had been validly lifted all the proceedings taken against those who exported the maize automatically fall to the ground. Their maintainability depends on the assumption that the exports were made without the authority of law. It is a well established principle of law that the decisions of the civil courts are binding on the criminal courts. The converse is not true. The High Court after entertaining the writ petitions and hearing arguments on the merits of the case should Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10118 of 2015 dt.22-03-2023 12/20 not have dismissed the petitions merely because certain consequential proceedings had been taken on the basis that the exports in question were illegal. For the decision of the controversy between the parties to the writ petitions neither the presence of the State of West Bengal nor the authorities who took penal action was necessary. The validity of the steps taken by them, as mentioned earlier, would depend upon the validity or otherwise of the export in question."
22. In this case on 13.02.2023, direction was given to the State to file a counter affidavit on behalf of the Superintendent of Police, Kaimur at Bhabhua which has come on record.
23. Learned APP has taken this Court to paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit which read as follows:-
"7. That after initiation of said FIR by the SHO Chainpur he endorsed S.I. Manoj Kumar of Chaimpur PS to investigate this case and during his investigation he recorded the further statement of the informant (Gopal Saha). The informant has fully supported his statement of FIR. In his further statement given before the 1.0. of the case U/s-161 of the Cr. P.C. The informant narrated that after making his false and fabricated signature and scanning the same illegal Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10118 of 2015 dt.22-03-2023 13/20 appointment of employed Prakhand teachers have been made, further he stated that when he comes into the knowledge about the said false and illegal appointments of the said employed Middle School Teachers then he asked a show-cause from the Headmasters of the said Middle Schools where they were taken their joining by them. They submitted their respective Show-Cause and from the careful perusal of the Show-Cause it seems that the petitioner (Birendra Singh), the ex-Block Education Officer, Chainpur was fully aware about the said illegal appointment. Thereafter when asked to submit concerned file and documents related with the employment of the said Middle teachers from the present B.E.O. Sri Suresh Kumar Singh, he clearly stated that the writ petitioner did not hand over any chit of papers related with the said employment to the informant vide his letter No.331 dated 22-09-2012.
24. He further took this Court to paragraph 8 to 11 which are the statements of the different school's head to show the complicity of the petitioner and the same is/are incorporated for brevity:
8. That further it is humbly submitted that during course of investigation the 1.0. of this case had recorded statement of Sri Asaraf Ali Ansari Headmaster of Urdu Madhya Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10118 of 2015 dt.22-03-2023 14/20 Vidyalaya Sikandarpur under Chainpur Block U/s- 161 Cr. P.C. In his statement the said Headmaster stated that on the basis of Memo No. 105 dated 16-
07-2012 issued from the office of B.E.O. Chainpur he had taken joining of Nikhat Praveen D/o Md. Nurul Hoda R/o Village Biddi. PS- Chainpur. After taking her joining he communicated about the same to the then B.E.O. (The present petitioner). Further he stated that she had joined in his School on 30-07- 2012 and remain worked till 09-08-2012 ie only for 11 days and there after she abstain from the school since 09- 08-2012 without giving any information to him. He had given such information to the informant and the writ petitioner on 18-09- 2012 (C.D. Para No. 04). In the CD Para No. 05 the I.O. of the case fully mentioned about the boundry of the said School.
9. That further during the course of investigation the I.O. of this case approached at upgraded Middle School, Merh (Chainpur) and recorded the statement of Head Master, Shri Ramta Singh U/s-161 of the Cr.P.C. During his integration by the I.O. he narrated that he had taken joining of Mohan Ram S/o Sudshwar Ram R/o Village-
Sarewa, Distt. Kaimur (accused of this case) on 11- 06-2012 on the basis of BEO, Chainpur Memo No. 106 dated 08-06-2012. Further he had taken joining of accused teacher Madhuban Yadav S/o Motilal Singh R/o Village-Ahirauli, District-Buxar on 07-07- 2012 on the basis of BEO Chainpur Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10118 of 2015 dt.22-03-2023 15/20 memo No. 87 dated 02- 07-2012 and further he had taken joining of accused teacher Babloo prasad S/o- Sankatha Kharwar R/o Village-koindi, District-Kaimur on 21-07-2012 on the basis of BEO Chainpur memo No. 118 dated 08-07-2012. Further this witness narrated before the I.O. that he personally meet with the said BEO (petitioner) and showed the said memo/letter (appointment letter) who told him that the said employment letter is true and correct. Further he stated before the I.O. that at present these teachers (Accused) are not coming in his school. (CD Para No. 09).
10. That during the Course of investigation I.O. of this case approached at upgraded Middle School Bardiha (Chainpur) and recorded statement of Head Master Smt. Badana Singh. In her statement U/s-161 of Cr PC she stated before the 10 that on the basis of B.EO office Chainpur memo No. 93 dated 08-06-2012 and on the direction of accused petitioner (BEO) she had taken joining of accused teachers namely Ram Bachan Singh S/o Kailash Singh R/o Village- Ramawatpur, PS-Bhagwanpur (Kaimur) on 11-06- 2012. After taking his joining she informed the petitioner accused. At present the said teacher is not coming in the school for teaching (CD Para No. 13).
11. That further during the course of investigation 1.0. of this case approached at upgraded Middle School Koindi and recorded the Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10118 of 2015 dt.22-03-2023 16/20 statement of Head Master of that school Smt. Sushila Kumari U/s- 161 of the Cr.P.C. She narrated that on the basis of Memo No.90 dated 02-07-2012 she had taken joining of accused teacher, Nand Kishore S/o Musafir Ram R/o Village-Saikua, distt. Buxar on 16-07-2012. The Said memo No. 90 dated 02-07-2012 is jointly issued by BDO, Chainpur (informant) and the accused BEO, Birendra Singh. Further she stated that on the basis of Memo No. 89 dated 02-07-2012 taken joining of accused teacher Dinesh Ram S/o Sri Nathuni Ram R/o Village-Mukharam. PS-Nuon and on the basis of memo No. 88 dated 02-07-2012 she had taken joining of accused teacher Smt. Mina Devi D/o Ram Raj Ram R/o Village-
Karmaini (Rohtas). Both Memo No. (Joining letter) were issued jointly by the informant, BDO and accused. Teachers are not coming at the school for teaching at present (CD Para No. 17)."
25. Thereafter the Superintendent of Police, Kaimur at Bhabua by his letter dated 21.11.2012 directed the S.D.P.O., Bhabhua to supervise the matter.
26. Having prima facie found the case against petitioner as also the other accused persons to be true, direction was given for submission of charge sheet which finally led to the cognizance order. He as such, has opposed the prayer. Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10118 of 2015 dt.22-03-2023 17/20
27. This Court has gone through the case in hand, the contents of the FIR, the charge sheet as well as the cognizance order as also the supervision note of the S.P. Kaimur at Bhabhua dated 31.10.2014. It is clear that the forged scanned signatures of the then Block Development Officer, Chainpur was used to issue selection letter to the Teachers allegedly named in the FIR.
28. Further, upon putting the concerned Principals of the schools on show cause, their reply made it clear that an information to this effect was given to the petitioner herein, who was the then Block Education Officer and further the next incumbent Suresh Kumar Singh submitted his letter stating that he did not provide any document.
29. In that view of the matter and the kind of allegation that has come against the petitioner herein, no relief can be extended to him.
30. So far as the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the point that when the accused persons have succeeded on civil side, the criminal case cannot continue, this Court has taken note of the order dated 14.02.2017 passed in CWJC No. 4694 of 2015 in which the Court recorded the statement of the State which read as follows:
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10118 of 2015 dt.22-03-2023 18/20 "In this case, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent no.7 and a plea was taken that the District Magistrate had directed the official concern to challenge the order of the "Appellate Authority". However, at the time of the argument, it was accepted by the learned State Counsel that till date no appeal or writ petition has been filed against the order of the "Appellate Authority".
It is unfortunate that the order of an authority, which has been constituted as per Statute, is not being implemented by the officers of the State itself.
Without going into detail of the case, the Court is of the opinion that the Respondents are duty bound to comply the order of the "Appellate Authority" passed in Appeal no.15/2013. Since against the order, till date no appeal or step has been taken, the order passed by the "Appellate Authority" has taken its finality."
31. From the aforesaid order, it is clear that only because the State failed to prefer an appeal/petition against the order passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Kaimur at Bhabhua, the Patna High Court was constrained to pass order for compliance of the said order which resulted into payment of salary.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10118 of 2015 dt.22-03-2023 19/20
32. Thus, it is not the case that the State contested the matter in civil side and the accused persons/Teachers succeeded in getting payment showing their bona fide and as such once the same has been stamped by Patna High Court, the present case cannot continue.
33. Clearly, the order aforesaid was passed on the technical ground as no appeal was preferred by the State against the order of the District Appellate Authority and in that background, the Patna High Court had no option but to pass an order to comply the order. Thus, the said orders cited by the petitioner cannot come to his rescue.
34. On the other hand, prima facie it is clear that the scanned signature of the Block Development Officer, Chainpur was used to secure employment of the Teachers named in the FIR who after joining chose to abstain themselves for long period. Once, the petitioner herein retired, the next incumbent tried his level best to procure the documents but was blocked by him for the reasons best known. In that background, the lodging of the FIR followed by submission of the charge sheet as also the passing of the cognizance order dated 10.12.2014 cannot be faulted upon
35. No interference is required.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.10118 of 2015 dt.22-03-2023 20/20
36. The petition preferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.
(Rajiv Roy, J) Jagdish/Neha/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE 14.03.23 Uploading Date 22.03.23 Transmission Date